Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., lashed out at President Donald Trump on Friday after he accused her of using a fake name and revived longstanding allegations surrounding her former marriage.
"The pedophile protection party's president is laundering right-wing conspiracy theories through the most corrupt DOJ in American history," Omar wrote on X.
"Whenever the news turns bad, this creep reaches for one name: mine," she continued. "So let's make it crystal clear. My name has always been Ilhan Omar."
ILHAN OMAR HIT WITH EXPULSION THREAT AS GOP LAWMAKER VOWS TO BOOT HER FROM CONGRESS OVER DOJ PROBE
Omar then turned her fire on Vice President JD Vance, adding, "Maybe you should focus on what your VP's real name is."
The verbal pushback came as Trump called on Omar to resign from Congress Thursday after Fox News Digital reported that Omar's birth name is Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, according to two people familiar with the ongoing federal investigation, including a law enforcement source.
A Justice Department court filing this week, related to a search warrant for her Washington-area home, identified the Minnesota Democrat as "Congresswoman Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, a/k/a Ilhan Abdullahi Omar."
Omar's office disputed Fox News Digital's reporting, insisting, "Ilhan Omar is her real name." Omar has not been charged with a crime.
"It was just revealed that Ilhan Omar's name is not Ilhan Omar," Trump wrote on Truth Social Thursday, accusing the congresswoman of using a "fake name" and calling for her immediate resignation. Trump also revived longstanding allegations that Omar's former husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, is her brother — claims Omar has repeatedly denied. He pointed out that the name used in the DOJ filings matched that of the man she allegedly married and is related to.
When asked during an MS NOW interview this week whether there was any familial relationship with Elmi, Omar responded, "Not to my knowledge." Her spokesperson later said the answer was sarcastic and reiterated that Omar "repeatedly and unequivocally" denied the allegation.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Federal investigators are probing whether Omar or her father made false statements on immigration paperwork.
Agents searched Omar's Washington, D.C., residence earlier this month and seized her cellphone and passport, while her sister has also been questioned as part of the investigation, Fox News Digital previously reported.
O Serviço Secreto dos Estados Unidos informou que um “objeto suspeito” foi encontrado em um cruzamento próximo à Casa Branca nesta sexta-feira (23), o que levou ao fechamento de ruas e a mobilização policial.
“Por volta das 14h40 do dia 23 de outubro de 2026, a polícia do Serviço Secreto foi notificada sobre um objeto suspeito perto da Rua 17 com a Avenida Pennsylvania”, disse um porta-voz do Serviço Secreto à CNN.
“O Departamento de Polícia Metropolitana e outros parceiros compareceram ao local e, por medida de precaução, interditaram vias na região. A investigação está em andamento e mais detalhes serão divulgados oportunamente”, adicionou.
*em atualização
The Trump administration has now announced or completed deals to take ownership stakes in 40 private companies. Just this week, the Commerce Department added four more proposed stakes to the running count we maintain at the Cato Institute’s Restoring Free Enterprise initiative. Those inclined to applaud the president’s dealmaking should consider what a Democratic president might do with those stakes after Trump is no longer in office.
Democrats are certainly thinking about it. Semafor reports that former Biden officials are licking their chops at the prospect of using government ownership to pressure gun and oil companies. Doug Farrar, who worked for then-Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan during the Biden administration, sees a future president leveraging government ownership to turn the screws on AI companies, "especially a Democrat who wants to seriously regulate this industry." Remember when the Biden administration bullied social media platforms to remove content it didn’t like during the COVID pandemic? That was done without government ownership.
I warned about this two weeks into Trump’s second term after he signed an executive order seeking to create a sovereign wealth fund, noting that a government investment fund would eventually become a vehicle for Democratic administrations to pursue policies Republicans oppose. The White House ditched the idea for a formal fund and proceeded to cobble together an ad hoc presidential portfolio despite having no clear legal authority to do so.
INSIDE TRUMP’S DEAL TO GIVE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS A MASSIVE STAKE IN NEW $6.6B SUBMARINE DEAL
If a Democratic administration had done this, it would be practically impossible to imagine a Congress controlled by Republicans allowing it to continue. And yet congressional Republicans, who never miss a chance to tag Democrats as socialists and communists, have collectively done nothing to stop the Trump administration. In fact, congressional Republicans are actively trying to give the executive branch—and thus future administrations, not just the current administration—the legal authority to continue doing it.
The Trump administration’s supporters cite its claims that equity stakes are better for taxpayers than blank checks, or that they are necessary to bolster supply chains for national security. Setting aside that they aren’t the administration’s true motivation, neither justifies Washington becoming a shareholder in a portfolio of companies.
Sure, if the government is already handing a company money, getting shares in return sounds better than a straight giveaway. But the trade-offs can’t be ignored.
When the government picks a racehorse, that horse is given advantages and privileges that leave the competing horses at a disadvantage. But the danger goes well beyond current competitors. Upstart firms, including those that don’t yet exist, already face a steep hill to climb in bringing their products and ideas to market. Government ownership steepens that hill, threatening to stifle the entrepreneurial spirit critical to America’s economic success.
The value of the shares on the government’s books isn’t the same as revenue in the Treasury. Realizing the gains requires selling the shares and subtracting what taxpayers put in. And as my colleague Scott Lincicome explains, Intel’s stock gains partly reflect expectations of government favoritism, including pressure on other companies to use Intel products. That points to the possibility that the government is diverting private investment from businesses with better commercial prospects.
WE WILL ALL PAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS’ ANTITRUST CRUSADE THAT KILLED SPIRIT AIRLINES
Even if the administration could sell its entire Intel stake today, it would net roughly $28 billion—less than 1.5% of the $2 trillion deficit Washington ran up in the fiscal year just ended under President Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress. The stakes the administration has acquired should be divested, regardless. But if the administration wants to raise funds productively, it could revisit Cato’s recommendations to sell excess federal buildings and privatize government businesses like Amtrak.
The national security rationale also sounds reasonable until you realize the federal government already has plenty of ways to support companies on such grounds without becoming an owner. Our Restoring Free Enterprise initiative lays out both market-based and government alternatives to equity stakes that would help bolster critical supply chains. Easing permitting requirements and removing tariffs on production inputs would make it easier for private companies to invest and expand supply. And the government can address specific defense needs through purchase contracts or stockpiles of critical materials.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Invoking "national security" also has a long-standing tradition in Washington as an excuse for politicians to justify actions they might not otherwise get away with. Back in April, the administration pursued a bailout that could have given the government 90% of Spirit Airlines on dubious national security grounds, until a group of the airline’s bondholders balked at the terms.
Last week, Politico reported that the Federal Aviation Administration is exploring an ownership stake in a company that develops software for managing air traffic control. National security or not, having the government become an investor in a company it is supposed to evaluate objectively is an objectively bad idea.
Defenders will also point to promises that the government will remain a passive shareholder and argue that concerns about federal control over the corporate boardroom are overblown. That’s a painfully naïve view of how Washington works. The Trump administration is already using contracts and regulatory authority to favor companies it owns.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
While Trump’s supporters may applaud that favoritism today, will they still applaud when a President Gavin Newsom or President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does it?
No.
That is why Republicans should use the time they still have to end this ownership experiment instead of waiting until a Democratic president makes them wish they had.
© Erin Schaff/The New York Times
Este viernes, el alcalde Zohran Mamdani desafió nuevamente a la agencia federal encargada de las detenciones de miles de migrantes en Estados Unidos. En un video en español, hizo una especie de entrenamiento para que los neoyorquinos sepan cómo actuar ante la presencia de los agentes del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE), a más de diez días de que la policía migratoria de Donald Trump baleara en el cuello a un dominicano en las calles de El Bronx.
©
First lady Melania Trump has secured an agreement between Russia and Ukraine to temporarily halt military operations in the southern Ukrainian city of Oleshky, where humanitarian aid will begin arriving October 29 and preparations for civilian evacuations will get underway.
The post Exclusive — Melania Trump Secures Localized Russia-Ukraine Ceasefire, Senior Adviser Calls It ‘Meaningful Step Toward Lasting Peace’ appeared first on Breitbart.
© Doug Mills/The New York Times
Today, the Trump Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block Alaska Senate election results on the grounds they might be influenced by voter "confusion" between incumbent Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan and a separate Republican candidate with a very similar name (Dan L. Sullivan). I previously wrote the issues raised by the two Dan Sullivans here. As I pointed out in the earlier post, there is no legal basis for overturning congressional election results based on voter confusion, and any such action would likely violate the First Amendment. See also this analysis by election law specialist Rick Hasen.
I would add that any such federal action also runs afoul of states' primary authority over election procedures. The Elections Clause of the Constitution gives states primary authority over "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives," subject to Congress' power to modify these rules by legislation. Congress has not enacted any statute allowing overturning of election results based on possible "voter confusion."
If "voter confusion" were a legitimate reason to overturn election results, that would imperil a great many election winners, as voter ignorance - and exploitation thereof by candidates - is a widespread and longstanding problem. I covered some of these points in my previous post about the two Dan Sullivans:
Donald Trump is a particularly egregious example, going all the way back to his first campaign in 2016, and more recently with his lies about the 2020 election and other issues. But more conventional politicians also often resort to lies and deception, even if not to the same degree. President Obama, for example, famously lied when he claimed that, under the Affordable Care Act, "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it." That deception won the 2013 Politifact Lie of the Year award. But it still helped Obama get reelected in 2012. I am not sure exploiting voter confusion about names is any worse than exploiting their ignorance about policy issues like crime, immigration, and health care….
Ultimately, both exploitation of voter confusion about names and other deceptions used in campaigns seek to exploit widespread voter ignorance. Because of the combination of "rational ignorance" (lack of incentive to seek out political information) and "rational irrationality" (lack of incentive to engage in unbiased evaluation), most voters know little about government and public policy, and often do a poor job of evaluating the information they do know. This makes them vulnerable to deception and manipulation, and incentivizes politicians to lie and otherwise distort the truth.
Voter confusion about candidates with similar names is just another example of this broader problem….
There is no easy solution to the problem of voter ignorance. But I assess a range of possible options in my 2023 article on "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Solutions to the Problem of Political Ignorance, and in my earlier book Democracy and Political Ignorance. I believe the best approach is to make fewer decisions at the ballot box and more by "voting with your feet," where incentives to seek out information and evaluate it wisely are much better. But I recognize that any effective approach will take time, and there may be no one fix that is sufficient by itself. We may need to pursue multiple strategies. In the meantime, voters are likely to continue to be ignorant and confused about a variety of issues, and politicians and interest groups are likely to keep on exploiting that.
Many of these other voter ignorance problems are far worse than any potential confusion between candidates with similar names, a problem that only comes up relatively rarely.
The post Trump Sues to Block Alaska Senate Election Results Because of Potential Voter "Confusion" appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Key developments on Oct. 23:
© Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times
President Donald Trump criticized the judge overseeing Charlie Kirk's assassination case in Utah on Friday, saying he's doing a "terrible job."
"The judge in the Charlie Kirk case is doing a terrible job! This case should be tried within a month, not three years — and it should be over with! The judge is desecrating the memory of the Great Charlie Kirk, while taking forever to ask questions that people already know the answer to. The whole Country is mocking him and our 'Legal' System. JUSTICE FOR CHARLIE!" Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Trump's comments come after Tyler Robinson's defense team proposed a tentative trial start date in the third quarter of 2029.
Robinson is due in court on Friday afternoon.
WATCH: Armored truck believed to be carrying Tyler Robinson arrives at court
This is a developing story.
© Cornell Watson for The New York Times
Login